A.M. No. 1008 January 22, 1980
Pasay Law and Conscience Union, Inc. vs. Atty. David D.C. Paz

FACTS

The Pasay Law and Conscience Union, Inc. (PLACU) filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. David D.C. Paz, charging him with malpractice, gross misconduct, and disloyalty. The Solicitor General, after investigation, formally charged Paz with two specific counts: representing conflicting interests and gross misconduct. The conflict-of-interest charge stemmed from Paz’s actions while serving as the Legal Officer and Chief Prosecutor of the Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government Operations (PARGO). In that capacity, he actively investigated an anti-graft complaint filed by Dr. Irineo Sia against former Pasay City Mayor Pablo Cuneta, gathering evidence and even administering oaths to witnesses. After resigning from PARGO, Paz subsequently appeared as legal counsel for Mayor Cuneta during the preliminary investigation of the very same anti-graft charges filed by PARGO’s successor agency.
The gross misconduct charge alleged that Paz, during the PARGO investigation, borrowed PLACU’s copy of a court record (Civil Case No. 72967) for evidentiary purposes but repeatedly failed to return it despite demands. He later denied having borrowed the record during a fiscal’s office hearing, forcing PARGO to reconstitute the documents.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. David D.C. Paz is guilty of representing conflicting interests and gross misconduct warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Atty. Paz guilty of representing conflicting interests but exonerated him of gross misconduct. On the conflict charge, the Court applied the strict rule from Canon 6 of Legal Ethics and Section 20(e), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which prohibit an attorney from representing conflicting interests without the consent of all concerned. The Court emphasized that the prohibition is absolute and is based on public policy, good taste, and the necessity of preserving inviolate the client’s confidence. A lawyer must avoid not only actual infidelity but also any appearance of treachery.
The Court ruled that an attorney-client relationship existed between Paz and the Republic of the Philippines through PARGO. As PARGO’s legal officer, Paz acquired confidential knowledge of the case against Cuneta. By later defending Cuneta against the same charges, he placed himself in a position where his duty to his new client (Cuneta) conflicted with his prior duty to his former client (the government). His attempt to use his insider knowledge to damage the government’s case was a clear violation. His subsequent withdrawal as counsel did not cure the violation, as the breach occurred the moment he entered his appearance for the adverse party.
Regarding the misconduct charge, the Court found insufficient evidence. The alleged receipt for the borrowed court record was not presented, and testimony indicated the evidence had been turned over to other PARGO officials. Thus, the charge was not proven.
For representing conflicting interests, Atty. David D.C. Paz was suspended from the practice of law for two months, with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely. He was exonerated on the charge of gross misconduct.